Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

Formula
Student UK
2019
FORMULA STUDENT UK 2019
T
his year’s FSUK event saw a deserved win for the Modena
Racing team, which elected to take the lightweight
approach to the competition, shaving around 10 per cent
from the overall weight of its 2018 car. It was heartening
to see that the winner of the UK event did not need to go electric,
in keeping with the political trends, but instead focussed on
increasing efficiency. It was interesting to note that the team also
had an engine development programme, but a failure in bench
testing meant that it had to revert to a smaller, less powerful unit.
So this will be an interesting contender again next year.
Of course, there was the usual mix of electric and ICE
engines, and huge aero designs against other teams that opted
for mechanical grip, which helps to keep the competition lively.
There is nothing worse than spec formula racing, or anything that
is too prescriptive, and it is always enjoyable to see variety and
experimentation. That’s what makes racing interesting.
However, it cannot be ignored that the governing bodies of
racing are currently pursuing a path of conformity, with limited
numbers of manufacturers bidding to provide spec parts, be
it chassis, gearboxes, brakes or whole car. At that point the
emphasis changes to making the most of your package. The theory
is that the racing will become closer and emphasis will switch
from the car and technology to the team and the driver. This will,
apparently, save costs and make racing more sustainable, although
we are well aware that this is the wrong tree up which to bark.
The FS grids better represent real life than the current
international racing scene. The future of motoring will include a
variety of powertrain solutions, including electric, gasoline and
(whisper it) diesel. For the young engineers to be experimenting
with at least two of the three possibilities, plus moveable aero
devices, will benefit the wider industry. It now falls to further
advancements, such as active suspension, to feature. Peter Wright
has written in Racecar Engineering about his first attempt at active
suspension in F1 while at Lotus in the early 1980s. His opinion is
that, had the system not been banned, such technology would now
be commonplace and a cheap way to gain performance. I’m sure
that the technology is now reliable and robust enough to support
such a programme, should an FS team pursue this path.
ANDREW COTTON
Editor, Racecar Engineering
CONTENTS
4 FS Electric
Detailed study of EV builds
12 Technology
What’s new in UK and German FS?
20 FS UK winners
MoRe Modena’s winning car
22 Chassis simulation
Danny Nowlan gets into
set up basics using ChassisSim
Editor: Andrew Cotton
Designer: Barbara Stanley
TECHNOLOGY – FORMULA STUDENT ELECTRIC

Taking charge
Electric racecars
competed at FSUK way
back in 2007 – four
years before Formula E
was even conceived

The Team Bath Racing car makes use of a chain drive solid spool axle, which is a common approach on Formula Student designs that are running with a single electric motor

4 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019

A large and ever-increasing number of Formula Student cars are now
electrically-motivated but, as Racecar discovered, developing such a machine
presents teams with a whole host of complications and technical challenges
By GEMMA HATTON

F
ormula Student may be an engineering
competition for universities, but the
innovations showcased by these
racecars are often a step ahead
of the motorsport industry. For example,
autonomous cars are now fully integrated into
the competition and the first electric racecars
competed at FSUK way back in 2007 – four years
before Formula E was even conceived.
In fact, in 2016 the electric FS car from
AMZ racing set a world record for the fastest-
accelerating electric vehicle, achieving
0-100km/h in just 1.513s, which still stands
today. In comparison the new generation of
Formula E cars accelerate from 0-100km/h
in 2.8s. Although this is not an entirely fair
comparison as Formula E and electric FS are
designed to a completely different rule set,
it does highlight the incredible standard of
engineering within these FS cars.
Today, over 32 per cent of FSUK teams are
now electric, with 39 teams also competing
in the electric category of Formula Student
Germany. It is no longer just the well-resourced
outfits that are taking on the electric challenge,
but the smaller teams are too.

Plugging in
As with any racecar, the first port of call is the
rulebook, and for electric Formula Student cars
complying with the rules is extremely tough.
‘One of the most important things to realise
when competing in electric FS is that you have
to go through two sets of entirely different
scrutineering at competition,’ says Ben Carretta,
technical manager at Team Bath Racing Electric.
‘As well as the standard scrutineering you also
have to go through an accumulator [battery]
scrutineering and a full electrical scrutineering.
It feels like the rules are trying to make you
jump through a lot of unnecessary hoops, but
when you start building the car, the rules are
actually quite a sensible guidebook on how to
design a safe electric racecar.
‘For an electric FS team starting up I would
say that the most fundamental thing is to have a
simple and reliable system, one that you know
is going to work, and then pay close attention
to the rules,’ Carretta adds.
With this in mind, most teams opt for a
two-year approach when starting an electric
project. The first year is spent designing, with
the final versions of the virtual car submitted
into Class 2 of the competition. Judges then
analyse their progress throughout the Design,
Cost and Business Plan events. The second year

FORMULA STUDENT 2019 www.racecar-engineering.com 5

TECHNOLOGY – FORMULA STUDENT ELECTRIC
is then used to build and test the real car, ready
to compete in Class 1. To help further kick-start
the electric team, many universities will
continue to run their combustion car, which
aids the transfer of mechanical know-how to
the electric team. This was the strategy that
Oxford Brookes took with its new electric team,
competing in Class 2 this year.
‘Aside from our accumulator lead engineer,
pretty much everyone in the team is new to
electric vehicles and the challenges that they
bring,’ says Deepak Selvan, chief engineer of
Oxford Brookes Racing Electric. ‘So having the
Class 2 and then Class 1 structure has been
probably the most important aspect for making
the switch to electric achievable. The biggest
challenge so far has been moving decisions
forward in such an open and unknown problem
space. With an electric car there is a big phase
of research and learning and what we struggled
with most was defining where we cut that off
and actually start making decisions. It wasn’t
actually an electrical challenge but more a
project management one.’
Skills audit
A team also needs to decide which components
will be developed in-house and which
will be bought in and this depends on the
expertise within the team. ‘It’s about looking
at who you’ve got within the team and what
knowledge you have within the university and
figuring out what you are capable of doing,’ says
Carretta. ‘It’s easy to look at individual systems
‘Having the Class 2 and Class 1 structure has probably been the
most important aspect for making the switch to electric achievable’
The location of the battery modules within the chassis can affect the weight distribution and CoG, which can change the vehicle’s dynamic behaviour. AMZ Racing’s design pictured
6 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019
‘With regards to
the batteries and
motors, we are not
a road car and we
are not a racecar’
and say “this is feasible” but it’s bringing all those
systems together to create a reliable package
which is most difficult. We had people who were
interested in battery technology, so that has
been an area that we’ve dived into ourselves,
with the help of our sponsors. It wasn’t
necessarily an area that we decided we could
make a massive improvement on. Formula
Student is a learning experience and if you had
people in your team who loved motor design
then that might be what you try and develop.’
‘At the end of the day Formula Student is an
engineering competition and in general you
have to ask yourself whether it is sensible to take
the time and resource to develop something, or
are you trying to reinvent the wheel, in which
case it may be better to buy something in,’ says
Natalie Kyprianou, the accumulator lead at Team
Bath Racing Electric. ‘We’re building a prototype
car and the requirements are very different to
what you can buy off the shelf. With regards
to the batteries and motors, we are not a road
car and we are not a racecar. We don’t race the
distances they do in Formula 3 or Formula E and
we don’t have the speed requirement that these
series have either. Also, we need to consider the
rules. We could buy or produce an extremely
powerful motor but that would be unnecessary
mass as the electric Formula Student cars are
power limited. Furthermore, as the power
increases the struggle of putting that power
down to the wheels would be greater due to
the limit of traction. We decided to build
our own battery because we wanted to fully
understand what was inside it.’
Batteries included
With off-the-shelf batteries often heavy and
not customised for Formula Student, this is
an area where teams can make significant
performance gains. ‘In our 2017 car the battery
weighed approximately 120kg; 2018 was the
first time we developed a truly custom design
which dropped the weight down to 67kg,’ says
Carretta. ‘We continued developing the BMS
[Battery Monitoring System] and other battery
ancillaries and dropped the weight down again
to 48kg for this year’s car. Compared to off-the-
shelf solutions which can be around 70 to 75kg,
this is a huge weight saving.’
Once the overall approach has been defined
the next stage is to develop a concept, and
again there are several schools of thought here.
There are two parts to a car’s electrical system.
Firstly there is the high voltage, which is all the
components with an electrical connection to
the accumulator (effectively the powertrain).
 MADE IN THE USA
MADE FOR THE WORLD
MADE IN THE USA
MADE
Learn FOR
more THE WORLD
about
Hastings Piston Rings at
www.hastingspistonrings.com.
Learn more about
Hastings Piston Rings at
www.hastingspistonrings.com.

ATHENA RACE HEAD GASKETS

ATHENA RACE HEAD GASKETS

The Science of Speed

The Science of Speed
Performance Engine Bearings
Performance Engine Bearings
Race Series Bearings
Provide Exceptional
Performance and
Outstanding
2nd place is for the other guy Durability
2nd place is for the other guy
XP BEARINGS - Tri-metal, Copper-lead
XP
HP BEARINGS
BEARINGS -- Tri-metal, Copper-lead
Bi-metal, Silicon Alloy
HP BEARINGS - Bi-metal, Silicon Alloy

ENGINE
ENGINEPARTS (UK)
PARTS LTD LTD
(UK)
Purfleet: 01708 890494
Purfleet: 01708 890494 Hinckley: 01455 250222
sales@enginepartsuk.net www.enginepartsuk.net
sales@enginepartsuk.net www.enginepartsuk.net
TECHNOLOGY – FORMULA STUDENT ELECTRIC

Secondly there is low voltage, which is all the

safety and data logging systems.
An electric car works through an
accumulator or battery providing power, but
this is often in the form of direct current (DC).
An inverter then uses a transistor switching
arrangement to convert this to three phase
alternating current (AC). This then powers
a motor which essentially rotates a magnet
(rotor) surrounded by copper coils (stator) and
the resulting oscillating magnetic field is used
to generate rotational motion which is then
mechanically coupled to the wheels.

Current thinking
The most simplistic concept is a single motor on
a fixed rear axle and to increase traction during
cornering a mechanical differential or a chain
driven solid spool axle can also be incorporated.
To achieve further control of the vehicle
dynamics, a second motor can be added to
drive the two rear wheels separately, along
with a chain drive single gear reduction or a
planetary gearbox. However, the most effective
method to maximise traction and dynamic
control is to have independent motors driving
each wheel. This four-wheel drive approach
is costly, but it does give the teams using it
the opportunity to explore the benefits of
technologies such as torque vectoring.
There are many different approaches to
designing an electric powertrain. But for FS
usually the first stage is to decide between
2WD and 4WD and whether the motors are
inboard or outboard, which then determines the
maximum power requirement. This is dictated
by the rules which stipulate a maximum power
of 80kW for 2WD and 60kW for 4WD. The motors
Teams can choose between batteries
with high power density or high energy
density. Because of the distances raced
and the demands placed on the battery
high energy cells are often more suitable
can then be selected, with teams aiming to
match the torque and speed characteristics
of the motor to suit Formula Student style
competition. The operational voltage of the
chosen motors and inverters then dictates the
maximum voltage required from the battery.
‘We started with having a target voltage
that we wanted to be at, based on the motor
package we are running on to try and keep it
in the efficiency band we wanted,’ explains
Selvan. ‘From there we looked at a range of
cells with different voltages and capacities
along with data from our lap time sims on
what our energy needs were for endurance.
‘We did also look at how much of a buffer we
would need if we don’t get regenerative braking
working or aren’t able to keep the motors in
their efficiency band,’ Selvan adds. ‘We ended up
working down from about 26 different battery
configurations to a short-list of three before
deciding on our final battery design.’
Energy limits
‘You are only allowed a specific amount of
energy in every compartment, so this limits
the maximum number of cells of each module,’
explains Andreas Horat, chief technical officer
at AMZ Racing. ‘The maximum voltage of the

The most effective method to maximise traction and dynamic

control is to have independent motors driving each wheel

Putting more cells in series increases battery voltage, while putting more cells in parallel increases current. Batteries need to be designed to meet specific current and voltage targets

8 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019

Measurement EvoScann® P-Series highly-
m i n i a t u r i s e d p re s s u re
scanner. Small and light,
weighing <15g, plug and
play system, robust and
accurate.

Dynamic pressure sensors

Ranges for measurement of
0- 1 psi to 0- 20,000 psi, at
frequencies upto 40-50kHz.

Multi-hole-probes and
systems measure the static
and total pressure, the
velocity and the angle of
attack of a flow. Shape, size
and material are fully
..without compromise. customizable.

Our comprehensive range of aerodynamic on-car testing instruments are

rEVOLUTIONising motorsport aerodynamics measurement capability. To
request more information or book a demonstration call +44 (0)1264 316470

E:enquiries@evolutionmeasurement.com
www.EvoScann.com
TECHNOLOGY – FORMULA STUDENT ELECTRIC
accumulator is on one side limited by rules,
which allow a maximum of 600V, but in our
case it was also driven from the inverter. The
inverter used in previous years specified the
maximum battery voltage which then leads to
the number of cells in series. Together with the
estimated necessary energy, the number of
cells in parallel is fixed. We have 130 cells in
series. We then look at the current draw at
maximum as well as the maximum charging
current when recuperating [energy]. In the end
the number of cells is adjusted to fit them in a
convenient way within the box. The cooling is
also considered during the cell placement.’
Motor specs
An alternative approach to determine the motor
spec is to focus on the desired tyre performance.
’Calculations including mass transfer, speed-
sensitive aerodynamic loads and tyre data
in combination with our self-developed lap
time simulation as well as mass sensitivities
derived from post-season tests were used to
find the event-point optimal key parameters
for the motor design,’ says Horat. ‘A top speed
of 115km/h and a maximum wheel torque of
395Nm yield the highest score prediction. Briefly
said, the motor design is driven from the tyre
side so we can reach the optimum performance
of the tyres and the accumulator is driven from
the capacity side to ensure we have enough
energy for the whole endurance.’
The next stage is to determine the amount
of energy and therefore the capacity that the
battery must carry throughout one single
discharge to complete endurance. For this,
often a Matlab script called Lapsim is used. This
‘Battery packs must be designed in such a way that a thermal
runaway in one of the cells cannot propagate to the next one’
The AMZ car uses four 37kW motors with a refined rotor and stator design; these drive a wheel each and give it good traction out of the many tight turns that are typical on FS events
10 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019
programme takes an aerial-view image of a track
with a known pixel-to-physical-distance ratio
and then runs a theoretical vehicle through a
lap of the circuit. The physical characteristics
of the vehicle (weight and gravity etc) as well
as vehicle dynamic parameters (downforce,
roll, pitch etc.) are considered along with safety
factors, an aggressive set-up and all parasitic
losses at 100 per cent to simulate the worst
case scenario. This model identifies the energy
required from the accumulator during one lap,
and therefore the energy that is required for the
entire endurance race as well as all the other
dynamic events at competition.
The accuracy of this simulation can be
further developed by incorporating more
reliable data such as that from tyre tests. Also,
the script itself can be extended to calculate the
performance of different powertrain concepts to
determine the potential number of points each
concept could achieve at competition.
‘We only have to complete 22km for the
endurance and we are limited to a max of
80kW for rear-wheel drive cars and 60kW for
four-wheel drive cars, so this already creates
your window of both power and energy,’ says
Carretta. ‘We looked at the average power
and speeds of previous cars to get an energy
requirement in kWh and size our battery.
We then identified the power draw at each
individual point to see how much we would
stress our batteries which then gave us an ideal
power and energy requirement so we could look
for cells that matched that and start building up
the battery pack from there.’
Choosing the ‘perfect’ cells for the battery
is by no means an easy task. Not only are
there different chemistries, but there are also
different types to consider, such as pouches
or cylindricals, with each cell offering different
power and energy density combinations.
Perfect chemistry
Most motorsport batteries are lithium ion
chemistries, with different cathode (positive
electrode) materials. Selecting the optimum
chemistry is a balancing act between achieving
the desired energy and power densities
whilst maximising safety. ‘Li-ion cells with iron
phosphate or manganese-based cathodes
are intrinsically safer than any of the primarily
cobalt based lithium ion cells,’ says Dr Dennis
Doerffel, chief technology officer at REAP
Systems, which supplies battery components
to Formula Student teams. ‘This is because their
cathode spinel structure doesn’t collapse if it
is completely depleted at the end of charging
and the anode cannot be overcharged because
li-ions from the cathode are depleted. The spinel
structure does not collapse and the cells do not
provide oxygen in case of thermal runaway. So
they are safer but often heavier.
‘Most cathodes are a mix of nickel, cobalt
and manganese these days in order to balance
the advantages and disadvantages,’ Doerffel
adds. ‘Cells which have a high manganese
content – similar to li-ion phosphate cells
– can’t produce [their] own oxygen, if the
cells overheat. So, they can be more easily
extinguished with C02. These manganese-based
cells have higher voltages than iron phosphates
which is why they have a higher energy density
and the current is a little lower so power
densities are quite similar. If you want higher
TECHNOLOGY – FORMULA STUDENT ELECTRIC

power and energy densities then you can go

for more cobalt content and less manganese,
but the higher cobalt and nickel content means
that if the cell catches fire it will be virtually
impossible to extinguish. Battery packs must be
designed in such a way that a thermal runaway
in one cell cannot propagate to the next.’
To get our heads around these power and
energy densities let’s look at other high voltage
motorsport batteries. In F1, the ERS (Energy
Recovery System) battery is discharged and
recharged multiple times per lap as the energy
from braking is stored in the battery which
can then be utilised later as additional boost.
Therefore, to achieve the power required for
that boost within the smallest F1-style package
available, these cells have high power densities
of approximately 10-17kW/kg, with lower
energy densities of around 90-120Wh/kg.
On the opposite end of the spectrum is
Formula E, where the battery has one single
discharge over the entire race and teams only
have a fixed number of joules of energy to play
with. Therefore, the batteries are designed to
contain as much stored energy as possible,
whilst the car is optimised to use this energy
efficiently. This is why Formula E batteries have
lower power densities of roughly 2.2kW/kg
but much higher energy densities of around
232Wh/kg, compared to Formula 1.

High energy
‘The longest race in Formula Student is
endurance which is usually half an hour or so
which requires high energy cells, rather than
high power cells,’ says Doerffel. ‘A high energy
cell can fully discharge in about 20 minutes,
whereas a high power cell can discharge in
six minutes with ultra high power cells
discharging within three minutes or faster. The
problem is that in a high energy cell there is
more internal resistance, so although it may
have a higher amp hour capacity rating, the
watt hour rating may significantly reduce if
you discharge with higher current. Also,
regenerative braking with high energy cells
can be difficult as usually they charge at 1C
[coulomb, a unit of electrical charge] so you
can’t push as much power back into the battery
when compared to a high power cell.
‘Another interesting consideration is the
cell manufacturer’s data sheet,’ Doerffel adds.
‘As manufacturers have to ensure their cells
can provide the life cycles they specify, you
can usually push the cells more than what
the data sheets say because racing usually
doesn’t require the stated cycle life of 3000 or
so cycles. However, it is difficult to find out how
much more you can push them safely because
AMZ Racing cools its motors by using water-cooling channels that are integrated within its 3D printed aluminium uprights
manufacturers won’t tell you. This is why FS is
so interesting, because the teams can choose
either high energy or high power cells but
they really need to identify the overall benefits
and that is a question that can’t be answered
without developing accurate simulation tools or
without testing cells and packs.’
Cell selection also depends on how the cells
are packaged within the battery box as this can
affect the overall performance characteristics.
The number of cells in series determines the
voltage, while the number of cells in parallel
determines the current and capacity. Therefore,
the more cells in parallel, the higher the current
and the more cells in series, the higher the
voltage. High voltages results in low currents
which is beneficial for the motors and inverters,
but not the battery. Furthermore, the rules
stipulate that the battery has to be split into
isolated modules, each limited to 120V, 6MJ
of energy and a maximum weight of 12kg.
Therefore, a high voltage battery would have to
be split into several modules, each accompanied
by a positive and negative high current
connection, BMS, fuse, contactors and other
ancillaries – all adding weight to the overall
battery box. Alternatively, teams can choose
lower voltage batteries and save weight but
take the hit on motor and inverter performance.
‘The Formula Student rules require you to
take the battery out of the car when charging
for safety reasons, which is a big design
limitation as it means we can’t make the battery
structural like you can on other electric racecars,’

‘The Formula Student rules require you to take the battery out of the car
when charging for safety reasons, which is a big design limitation’
12 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019
The cells need to be arranged in such a way that the air can
effectively flow in between them and through the battery
says Kyprianou. ‘So then you think “we will
split the battery in two”, but the rules specify
that each module has to be identical so not
only does it double the electronics, switches
and mass, but also the risk of failure as you’re
effectively building two batteries.’
Cool running
Cooling the cells is another vital consideration
that needs to be thought about early on in the
design process. Most Formula Student batteries
are air cooled, with a fan circulating the air.
Therefore, the cells need to be arranged in
such a way that this air can effectively flow in
between the cells and through the battery.
‘Our research showed that for what an FS
car has to endure, with the hottest and longest
cycle being the endurance, active air cooling
was suitable,’ says Kyprianou. ‘We have fans
inside the battery and pass air though the cells
rather than liquid. Liquid cooling adds a lot of
risk and there’s a lot more work involved.’
It’s not just the battery that requires cooling,
often the motors do too, as is the case with
AMZ Racing’s car. ‘We started nine years ago to
design our motors ourselves and although we
have continued to optimise the rotor and stator
design, the main design concept remained
the same for the past few years which allowed
us to continuously improve our motor every
iteration, reaching 22Nm and 38kW at a weight
of 2kg in the 2019 season,’ says Horat. ‘Cooling
of the motors is really important, so for this
year’s car we have integrated the motor cooling
inside the upright so that the motor needs no
additional cooling casing. So we effectively cool
our upright which in turn cools the motors. This
allowed us to design a lighter and stiffer upright.’
Safety systems
Once the motors, inverters and cells have been
selected and the battery configuration has been
optimised, the next challenge is to integrate
the BMS and other safety systems. ‘We have our
predominant shutdown system which is a single
loop that goes around the car and it has various
systems such as emergency stop buttons, [in]
the BMS or the ECU that can break that electrical
line which then causes the car to shut down,’
says Kyprianou. ‘So, if anything goes wrong
the shutdown line is broken and therefore the
battery isolates itself completely, so you have a
really robust and simple safety system.’
Although some teams develop their own
BMS, the majority buy off-the-shelf tried and
tested systems. However, this still requires some
level of engineering from the teams. ‘Our BMS is
not specifically designed for Formula Student,
so the teams still have to understand how it
works and do a lot of engineering,’ says Doerffel.
‘There is a lot of electro-chemistry inside
batteries that engineers are still understanding
and I think one of the biggest concerns is that
batteries are very quiet. They sit there and
they look quite peaceful, and students can
underestimate the safety risks of them.’
Overall, there are a huge number of factors
to consider when developing an electric
powertrain, and a whole host of additional
factors to design a high performance one. But
with competitions such as Formula Student
encouraging students to face these challenges
early in their careers, the next generation of
engineers will be able to solve the mysteries
of electric technology much faster.

The geometry of the water cooling channels on the AMZ Racing uprights can be seen here in this CT scan. This approach had a knock-on effect of improving the upright’s design

FORMULA STUDENT 2019 www.racecar-engineering.com 13

TECHNOLOGY – FORMULA STUDENT

Schools of thought
Formula Student UK and Formula Student Germany were once
again hotbeds of innovation this year with inspiring and intriguing
solutions on show at both. Here’s our review of the most fascinating
technology and trends to come out of the 2019 competitions
By JAHEE CAMPBELL-BRENNAN

W
ith concepts ranging from
single-cylinder combustion
cars to 4WD electric drivetrains,
this year’s Formula Student UK
(FSUK) and Formula Student Germany (FSG)
events were once again great adverts for the
ability and ingenuity of student engineers, and
there was very much of interest on show at both
Silverstone and Hockenheim.
Starting with the suspension, in general
the overall design approach to this across
the paddock has more or less converged to
a common format. Springs and dampers are
positioned inboard of the wheels and the
chassis is actuated via pushrod and bell-crank
assemblies. This year’s UCL car, however,
featured an innovative and novel approach
to suspension design in the form of flexures.
In the context of control arms, flexures are
an alternative mounting technology to the
traditional spherical bearing configuration.
Traditionally, control arms are fastened to
the chassis via bolts in double-shear with
articulation to allow for wheel displacement
provided by spherical bearings. The idea of
a flexure is that the control arm is mounted and stiction of the system, although that idea
to the chassis without a spherical bearing didn’t make it on to the finished car.’
and instead uses a flexible section of material The car featured no downforce generating
bonded and fastened to the arm. The benefits of bodywork; the entirety of grip generated was
this arrangement include reduced weight and mechanical and so the team at UCL focused
friction in wheel articulation, as well as a finer on creating a chassis that worked the tyres
control of kinematic and compliance effects efficiently, generating heat and maximising
within the system. grip. ‘We initially performed a study into
which suspension parameters had the largest
Flexible approach influence on tyre temperature and incorporated
It was at first a little surprising to see flexures
on a Formula Student car due to the fairly large
wheel travel requirement (a combined 50mm
of bump and droop), whilst the control arms are
relatively short so there is a typically large range
of angle required for wheel articulation.
‘The entire approach to this FS car was
towards mechanical grip rather than that of
aerodynamic grip,’ says Pete Weston, who
played a key role in the development of this
feature. ‘With the suspension we saw the
opportunity to try something a little different
and so have used flexures on the control arms.
We initially began the project with the intention
of using torsion springs to reduce the friction

Flexures, seen here on the UCL control arms, are an alternative to the traditional spherical bearing approach Metz competed with an aero package for the first time this year

14 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019

the results from that study into our design,’
Weston says. ‘We did extensive FEA on the
flexures. The solution was driven through a
combination of [using] x-section and the length,
and is designed to be flat at static ride height so
the nominal deflection is defined by a maximum
of 25mm of travel at the wheel either side of this
to equally load it in bump and droop. Material
selection was a big factor in defining a safe
flexure and we settled on SAE 4130, which is a
high UTS steel with a good fatigue life.’

Aero smiths
Despite aerodynamic appendages now being
a common sight in FS, the philosophies around
the paddock are far from converged. Depending
on the resources available to each team some
opt for wingless configurations with simple
fairings to reduce drag while the more well-
resourced teams have developed complex
and extremely aggressive aero packages in the
search for downforce, with large chord and high
camber wings, dual tier rear wings with two or
three elements and high gradient diffusers.
Despite the low speeds of the competition’s
dynamic events with maximum speeds only
around 75mph/120km/h, the overall results
Just two students were responsible for designing the Metz aero package and the team has only nine members
do suggest that the additional weight and track and Metz’s package wasn’t any different
drag penalties of an aerodynamic package are in this respect. But the really impressive thing
outweighed by performance gain. about it was its complexity, despite there being
Metz arrived at FSUK this year with its first just nine members in the team. In fact, just two
attempt at an aero package, despite competing students developed the entire aerodynamic
in FS for the last nine years. FS aero packages package from a blank sheet of paper.
tend to be very aggressive in design due to the ‘Our aim with the aerodynamics of the car
low speeds that result from the design of the was to build a solid and efficient foundation,’

The more well-resourced teams have

developed complex and extremely aggressive
aero packages in the search for downforce
TECHNOLOGY – FORMULA STUDENT

‘The entire approach to this car was towards

says Alexandre Leys, team manager at
Metz. ‘We didn’t initially search for ultimate

mechanical grip rather than aerodynamic grip’

downforce figures but we wanted to be safe and
incorporate adjustability from which to create
an aerodynamically balanced platform. We
wanted our centre of pressure just behind the
centre of gravity and we accomplished this with
a 53 per cent rearward aerodynamic balance
to our 50:50 weight split, generating a total of
around 45kg of downforce at 60km/h.’
This was achieved using a relatively simple
tiered front wing which directs the air over
the front wheels to reduce lift and subsequent
downstream turbulence, with an outer dual
element tier and vertical end plates. The rear
wing was again not revolutionary but of a sound
and concise design; featuring three elements
along with an upper tier. The lowermost aerofoil
of the three-element assembly featured a very
long chord length. Presumably this is aimed
at maximising the potential of the extremely
turbulent and low energy air that has travelled
over the driver, main roll-hoop and engine
intake. This results in a more efficient flow on
to the upper tier, which also featured a neat
Gurney flap to aid flow attachment. The ingenious use of gas struts on the Strathclyde FSUK entry allowed the front wing to run in ground effect

Go with the flow allowed us to use a more aggressive rear wing are prominent, teams outsource engineering
The underbody aero also featured a high package and consequently increase the car’s solutions due to time, budget and expertise
gradient diffuser to promote mass flow. ‘Our overall downforce numbers.’ limitations. In this collaboration Ain Shams
two aerodynamicists worked for the first six To make its aero package Strathclyde used produced the chassis, suspension and bodywork
months solely on design and simulation and a simplistic but effective carbon fibre lay-up whilst the University of Sussex developed the
often had simulations running 24 hours a day,’ technique. ‘We have a pretty simple lay-up electric powertrain and other electrical systems.
says Leys. ‘Our sponsors, Safran, assisted with technique which means we could manufacture ‘From the start of the project, anticipating
the manufacture of the wings, with a foam core the entire aero package within two weeks but future complications, both teams agreed that
used for the aerofoil sections. The profiles were it’s also pretty lightweight, at only 7kg,’ says we would keep the car as simple as possible
cut by us with a wire-cutter but without the Lowther. ‘We had to stretch the limits on what for our first venture, with reliability at the
experience and help of Safran we wouldn’t have we could technically get away with, but it forefront,’ says Serdar Cicek, team leader of the
been able to manufacture them in time.’ resulted in the second lightest aero package of project. ‘As ever, there were plenty of obstacles
Metz’s implementation of sound the [FSUK] competition, so we are proud of that.’ to overcome. For example, the chassis was
aerodynamic theory coupled with its maturity manufactured in Egypt so when we received
in not attempting the unachievable was Joint effort it, we found there were some tolerances in the
impressive and should be commended, Occasionally, universities work with each other manufacture that were larger than expected,
especially when achieved with relatively small to develop an FS car and one such collaboration which resulted in some issues which we had
resource. Often it’s better to keep things simple for 2019 was that of Ain Shams University in to overcome, so we learnt valuable lessons
and do them well, rather than overcomplicating Egypt and the University of Sussex in the UK. In there. The chassis didn’t arrive until early May
the task and running into issues. all forms of motorsport, technical collaborations for various reasons so we only had around five
Another neat aero innovation was the front
wing design of the Strathclyde car. Regulations
necessitate a jacking point at the rear of the car
which when used will rotate the front wing into
contact with the ground and therefore damage
it. This usually means that the teams design
wings that are mounted relatively high and
therefore are clear of any potential ground effect
performance gains. However, to work around
this, Strathclyde installed gas struts and a pivot
point where the front wing is mounted to the
nose. So as the rear of the car is jacked up, the
front wing contacts the ground, compressing
the gas struts which consequently prevents any
damage. ‘Mounting the front wing in this way
meant we could utilise ground effect; reducing Imperial’s car features a largely
our drag and increasing the downforce,’ says Iain self-designed electric powertrain
Lowther, the team’s technical director. ‘This then

16 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019

 AUTOSPORT PUSH-PULL
CONNECTORS

© FSG - Jonas Haertl

LEMO’s range of rugged

quick release connectors
are smaller, lighter and
ideal for harsh environment
applications.

• T, M & F Series
• IP68 rating
• Space saving
• Robust design
• Quick release
mechanism
• Light weight material
options
• RoHS & REACH
compliant plating
options

Cable assembly service

Expand the quality of your
connector to the cable
assembly with LEMO one-
stop shop value-added
cable assembly services.

High Quality Connectors and Cables

LEMO SA - Switzerland
Phone: +41 21 695 16 00
info@lemo.com
High Quality Connectors and Cables
facebook.com/lemoconnectors
linkedin.com/company/lemo-sa

Contact your local partner on www.lemo.com/contact

TECHNOLOGY – FORMULA STUDENT
TU Graz rear wheel steering system; the toe control arms are actuated by the motor assembly
AMZ’s mode decoupling suspension is similar to the FRIC system on the Porsche 919 LMP1 car
weeks before our car launch to prepare the car
and mate all the systems together. Therefore, we
effectively only had nine weeks to complete a
running car, but never the less we managed to
get our car ready for competition.’
Imperial measured
Imperial University entered FSUK with its first
Class 1 entry, having previously only entered the
competition in Class 2, which is where teams
are judged on their designs alone. The team
developed a car with an electric powertrain
but the ingenuity with this project was its
battery solution. The battery was designed
and manufactured entirely in house and is air
cooled. While that may not be revolutionary in
itself (see page 72), the battery is cooled using
passive airflow travelling underneath the car,
rather than the more conventional method of
active air cooling which utilises fans.
A team of four students worked on the
battery and used cells from an external supplier.
These were then used to build up the battery
modules, which were mounted underneath
the chassis rather than in the more common
location of behind the driver. This is not only
a clever way of reducing complexity and
cost, but it also has further dynamic benefits
such as lower weight and improved weight
distribution. ‘Some of our challenges were with
the manufacture, in order to fit the cell packs in
the tight space under the chassis as opposed to
in the sidepods or behind the driver,’ says Harry
Thompson, who developed the batteries at the
Imperial team. ‘We had to employ some very
tight packaging tolerances so tolerancing and
machining were our main hurdles.’
18 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019
The remarkably light AMZ car features four 37kW wheel-mounted electric motors
Many forms of electric vehicle battery packs
require liquid cooling to keep the lithium-
ion cells within a very narrow temperature
window, sensitive to +/-1degC, to optimise
performance. But with this solution the rate
of cooling is dependent on vehicle speed and
therefore the level of heat rejection. ‘With our
cooling solution, the positive is that when the
car is moving slowly and there is low air speed,
we don’t need to reject a large amount of
heat,’ explains Thompson. ‘At the times where
the cells are generating a lot of heat under
acceleration, the air speed is high, so it works
well in that sense. We have also done some
analysis in terms of both computer simulation
and within a battery oven at our expected
worst case conditions, and while there is always
the possibility that the cells get a little too
hot in unexpected conditions we have safety
measures that will shut the car down to avoid
unsafe conditions escalating. Our battery can
release the full 80kW limited by regulations and
the pack has a capacity of 7kWh which will last
the whole endurance event, so we feel we have
produced a successful design.’
Graz routes
TU Graz entered the 2019 FS season with an
impressive history; three world records and two
overall wins in recent years. Its main objective
for this year was therefore to continue this
success by evolving the technology and designs
TU Graz achieved one of the lightest cars seen
at FSG, weighing in at an impressive 150kg
TU Graz’s main focus has been on its switch to smaller tyres
of the car. Much of the 2019 car comprises of
incremental changes compared to previous
years, with particular focus on weight reduction;
it achieved one of the lightest FS cars seen at
FSG, weighing in at an impressive 150kg.
One of the most substantial changes this
year was the switch to a smaller diameter tyre
developed by Hoosier. ‘We noticed that a lot of
the teams were putting substantial work into
their aerodynamic development and seeing
positive results. So this year our main focus
has been on the smaller tyres and how to
optimise the car’s behaviour with those, whilst
also increasing our aerodynamic performance,’
explains team leader Jodok Hammerle.
Dropping from 18in to 16in outer diameter
tyres, the smaller tyre not only reduces
weight, but also the polar moment of the
car and rotational mass, complimenting
vehicle dynamics. This change also required
some modifications to the kinematics of the
suspension to capitalise on these advantages,
allowing the team to feature some additional
aerodynamic elements around the wheel to
improve aerodynamic efficiency.
A new rear wheel steering (RWS) developed
by the students also featured on the TU Graz
car this year. RWS systems are used to influence
the yaw responses of a vehicle through actively
controlling toe at the rear wheels during
cornering to reach optimum slip angles and
maximum cornering grip. TU Graz’s system uses
inputs from steering wheel angle, vehicle speed CAD rendering of the TU Fast team’s car, the eb019
and a gyroscope to create a map of steering
input to the rear wheels for best performance.
‘In testing we were showing to be one to two
seconds faster around the circuit with the
system enabled, even gaining 0.3 of a second
in one hairpin alone, so it’s a great addition for
us,’ Hammerle says. ‘We currently use it for all
events aside from the skid-pad as our drivers
reported it was very difficult to drive [with it] on
that particular course layout. The total weight
for the system is 1.4kg so we are not incurring
much of a weight penalty with this.‘

Going TU Fast
Another one of the best German heavyweight
teams is that of TU Fast from the Munich
Technical University. Having unfortunately
been disqualified for a software issue after
effectively winning the FSG competition last
year, it was determined to set the record straight
this year. So, having already identified the
formula to build a competition winning car, the
2019 entry was an evolution of the 2018 racer,
with incremental changes and updates, but
largely the same technical package.
That said, aerodynamics were a focus for
improvement for this year’s TU Fast car, with
the new aero package being 10 per cent more
efficient than last year. ‘Our extra aero efficiency
was due to a larger rear diffuser and underbody
modifications,’ says Gregoriy Garyuk, technical
director at the team. ‘Most of the effort was
focused there and this then meant we had to
make adjustments to our front wing to maintain
the correct aerodynamic balance, so we added
additional flaps to help this.’
Speaking to various Formula Student teams,
it seems the vast majority of those running
a 10inch wheel have this year moved to the
newly available Hoosier 16in tyre. TU Fast also
took this opportunity, leading to a revision of
its suspension kinematics, which is a pretty
standard change. However, it also chose to take
this opportunity further and it has downsized
its reduction gearboxes too, with the new
configuration now reducing the torque reacted
in the gearbox, while this alteration also gave it
a small weight advantage.
TU Fast also attributes some of its speed
on track to a completely (aside from the
motors, that is) in-house powertrain design.
‘We have developed the ECU, accumulator
and inverter in house,’ Garyuk explains. ‘This
year we also changed our communication
protocols between the ECU and the inverter
which required a little work, but we have a great
inverter solution and none of the issues with
EMI [electro-magnetic interference] that we
have seen other teams have. The combination
of ECU, inverter and accumulator is very well
adapted to the requirements of our car.’
Electromagnetic interference can occur from
components like power inverters when they are
not correctly shielded from the behaviour of
Exploded view of the TU Fast wheel assembly and packaging
The vast majority of the teams running a 10in
wheel have moved to the new Hoosier 16in tyre
the electromagnetic field. If not under control
it can affect CANBUS communications creating
malfunctions of the control systems on the car
and can also damage the inverter itself.
Swiss watch
Powertrain development was also a theme
at AMZ Racing, the Zurich team. Its 2019
contender is an evolution of last year’s car, with
the same basic concept. This features four 37kW
wheel mounted electric motors delivering
wheel torque to a remarkably light 158kg body
and a well-developed aerodynamic package
and suspension system. Where the 2019
powertrain differs to last year on the Zurich car
is the switch from two electrical accumulators
to one. This consequently changed the aero
concept around and necessitated a smaller
rear air diffuser due to package redistribution
behind the driver. This allowed the sidepod area
to be used for aerodynamics rather than pump
and electrical equipment packaging.
Development of its in-house inverters has
also continued. The current design is half of the
weight of last year’s design and was achieved
through moving from four single inverters
to two double inverters, allowing further
packaging and weight distribution freedom.
The tech that really shone on this car,
though, was that of the suspension system
which featured active wheel control. ‘Last year
we had a hydraulic active suspension concept
actuating each wheel individually, but we ran
into major issues which meant we had to run
the system passively, which was not ideal,’ says
Oliver Haselbach, chief technical officer of the
mechanical aspects of the car. ‘This year we
simplified the suspension system to utilise three
spring and damper elements with one element
at each of the front and rear axles acting to
decouple heave/pitch modes, plus one central
element for roll and warp mode decoupling.’
This system is an evolution of an initial
concept introduced at AMZ three years ago
and from a vehicle dynamics perspective it
gives a great amount of control and precision
of reaction to input in multiple degrees
of freedom, ensuring an optimal dynamic
response in a range of conditions. This
ultimately leads to a reduction in the variation
of contact pressure between tyre and track
surface and a set-up that produces maximum
mechanical grip. This is similar to systems that
have been used in high level motorsport, such
as the Porsche 919 LMP1 car’s FRIC system,
and it will always benefit the car’s performance
throughout dynamic events, which AMZ has
always excelled at anyway.
Lastly, there is also a new wheel upright and
motor assembly packaging that was influenced
by a move to smaller wheels this year. ‘We have
a new smaller tyre from Hoosier which meant a
change to the wheel packaging,’ says Haselbach.
‘We are now using SLM 3D printed aluminium
uprights which have integrated water-cooling
channels for the motors, so it’s very complex
and we are proud of that. In total we saved
6kg with this packaging update.’

FORMULA STUDENT 2019 www.racecar-engineering.com 19

TECHNOLOGY – FORMULA STUDENT UK

Class of the field

This year’s Formula Student UK event at Silverstone threw up some interesting
technical solutions, as always, but there was no amount of tech trickery that
could deny MoRe Modena Racing (MMR) of its well-deserved victory. Racecar
took a close look at the Italian team’s clever little M-19L racer
By JAHEE CAMPBELL-BRENNAN

T
he 2019 FSUK winner, MoRe Modena
Racing (MMR), took the competition
by storm, with a 119-point advantage
over its closest rival, Oxford Brookes.
MMR is based at the University of Modena
and Reggio Emilia and its Formula Student
journey began back in 2003, when it was run
out of a small workshop at a car showroom.
Today, the team fields three cars out of a
dedicated university workshop and comprises
approximately 80 mechanical, mechatronics,
electrical and management students.
The 2019 FSUK winning car, the M-19L
featured a carbon fibre monocoque for the fifth
year running, a longitudinally mounted gearbox
and a full aero package. ‘The main focus for 2019
was to optimise concepts and solutions from
the 2018 car,’ says Gianmarco Carbonieri, team
leader at MMR. ‘There were some components
that had reliability issues, for example the DRS
system in 2018 did not work correctly, so we
made sure that was fixed this year.’

That’s a MoRe
Weight was also a strong focus and by
optimising component development the
team managed to lighten the car significantly,
contributing to its dynamic performance
targets. ‘We had a design objective to reduce
individual component weight over the whole
car by six per cent from last year, and actually
we overachieved this and lost nearly 10 per cent
of weight from last year’s car – we’re currently
weighing in at 196kg,’ Carbonieri says.
The Formula Student regulations recently
changed to allow an increased maximum
displacement of 710cc. MMR took full advantage
of this and therefore up-sized this year’s engine
to a 708cc Suzuki GSXR, something it predicted
would generate more power over a wider
speed range than the previous 600cc GSXR unit.
‘The original idea was to use a 708cc Suzuki
GSXR engine derived from a 750cc stock unit,’
Carbonieri says. ‘We modified the crankshaft
The MMR team has worked hard to eradicate an aero imbalance it had with last year’s car while also improving the cooling
and connecting rods to reduce displacement
to 708cc, but unfortunately on the bench we
had a crankshaft failure due to a manufacturing
defect. We lost that engine and so had to
revert back to the standard 600cc engine. We
lost around 7bhp by using this, but we’re still
managing around 99bhp, so we reached our
specific power target of 2kg per bhp.’
The engine is mounted longitudinally, which
is an unusual approach for a Formula Student
team, as they usually opt for transverse. ‘We are
one of the only teams to use the longitudinal
engine mounting,’ says Carbonieri. ‘This brings
advantages in terms of space for accessories, it
also moves the heat from the exhaust further
away from the driver, fuel tank and electronic
components. The bevel gear transmission we
are now able to use is more efficient in the
driveline. We only used gears two to five in this
gearbox, so we removed ratios one and six. This
saves us some space and weight that we take
advantage of it with a custom gearbox casing.’
MMR’s carbon fibre chassis concept is
an evolution on previous years’ cars and is a
slightly different approach to the fully moulded
monocoques more regularly seen amongst the
winning teams. ‘We are using the cut and fold
technique without moulds for our monocoque,
primarily to reduce costs,’ explains Carbonieri.
‘Traditional carbon fibre monocoques were
costing around €50,000 for the mould and
another €10-15,000 for the part. Finished, our
chassis is around €10-12,000 total.’
Using this method, carbon fibre and
aluminium honeycomb panels are constructed
in 2D and ‘cut and folded’ to form 3D shapes,
creating a somewhat geometric appearance
to the monocoque. Panels are then bonded

‘We are using the cut and fold technique without moulds
for our monocoque, this is primarily to reduce the costs’
20 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019
CFD plot taken along the longitudinal centreline showing the velocity distribution around the car’s rear wing
to form the finished part (see V28N9 for the
full method). The final chassis is lightweight,
weighing under 17kg, and has a high torsional
rigidity, which improves vehicle dynamics.
One interesting feature of the MMR car
is the driver operated DRS (Drag Reduction
System). Used in F1, the concept behind this
technology is to reduce the angle of attack of
the uppermost wing element (with the largest
frontal area), reducing drag significantly where
downforce is not needed. ‘We use a motor
and wire operated element, all the wires are
integrated into the main-plane and endplates
so it is a neat solution,’ says Carbonieri.
‘Packaging the wiring was a little difficult initially
as we had some problems with the flap cutting
the wire, but we have addressed those now. The
motors and associated hardware are weighing
nearly 500g and are mounted quite high [1m]
on the car, but we made the judgement that the
effect on CoG was negated by advantages on
the straight section of the track.’
One of MMR’s key objectives for 2019 was
to reduce unsprung mass as much as possible.
This is why it aimed to bring new 10in carbon
fibre wheels to FSUK. ‘We made a prototype
but unfortunately we had a problem with the
supplier for this part so we only made one
wheel. With each wheel weighing just over
1kg this is a 3kg saving across the whole car so
we’re certainly aiming to implement this design
in the future,’ says Carbonieri. ‘We use M46J CF
and unidirectional reinforcements around the
centre. It’s a 10in diameter with three spokes, of
hollow construction. We are using aluminium
inserts to be certain that there is an evenly
distributed load from the hub into the wheel as
carbon fibre is quite fragile in that respect.’
For 2019 MMR had two main aims which
drove the design of the car’s aero package.
The first was to solve the aerodynamic balance
which was too rear biased on the 2018 car,
and the second was to improve the cooling
efficiency, which meant modifying the sidepods.
‘We developed the aero package this year to
address an understeer issue we had with the
2018 car, so we looked at more aggressive aero
on the front wing to solve this,’ says Carbonieri.
‘A lot of work went into our end plates and
we got to a 58 per cent front balance which
works better for us. Last year we had separate
radiators for our water and oil but this year we
implemented a single air-water heat exchanger
for the water and used a water-oil heat
exchanger to cool the engine oil.
‘Last year the radiators were fairly big so we
have reduced the dimensions of the radiators
by 40 to 50 per cent. We have two coolers in
parallel and a larger pump with PWM [pulse
width modulation],’ Carbonieri adds. ‘We found
this to be more efficient in terms of thermal
exchange. This configuration also gained us
about 2-3kg of weight saving with smaller
radiators, less water and smaller sidepods,
with the latter also allowing us to rework the
aerodynamic performance and reduce drag.’
Test of time
Testing and verification is an interesting
challenge within FS. With only one year for
design and manufacture as well as limited
resources, development work continues right
up until very close to the event. In FS terms,
MMR actually had a fairly significant amount
of test resource, both analytical and physical,
which played a key role in its success. With the
powertrain, MMR used analytical tools for the
majority of its development and calibration.
‘We ran powertrain simulations using 1D sim
tools such as Simulink and used a dyno to
gather measured data,’ Carbonieri says. ‘We
would correlate all of the 1D sim outputs on the
bench to ensure they were producing accurate
data which allowed us to trust what we were
doing.’ Using this approach saves both time and
money, allowing iterative concepts to be proven
and verified in a short time frame.
Physical testing is not always possible, and
definitely not to the extent that teams would
like. This is particularly true with aerodynamics,
where testing in controlled environments
such as wind tunnels is often not available.
Therefore, to correlate its CFD data, MMR used
a different strategy. ‘For our aero package we
relied largely on CFD as we had no access to
a wind tunnel, but we did try to correlate our
CFD using a method of attaching string to the
aerodynamic surfaces during track testing to
FORMULA STUDENT 2019 www.racecar-engineering.com 21
The M-19L’s very neat brake and upright assembly
monitor the airflow patterns, and we had quite
good success with that,’ says Carbonieri. ‘We
also had displacement sensors on our dampers
so we used the data from those during track
testing to monitor compression of our springs
due to aerodynamic load, this gave us a little
correlation to the CFD simulations. We also used
this to fine tune the aerodynamic balance.’
Vehicle dynamics simulation was another
crucial aspect of the car’s development as it
allowed the defining of suspension geometries
and critical dimensions. It also enables the
optimisation of parameters such as spring and
damper rates, anti-roll bar stiffnesses as well as
understanding the influence and sensitivity of
the car to CoG location with regards to weight
transfer and the moments generated on track.
‘We used ADAMS to design our suspension
layout and kinematics and then used VI Grade
to run lap time simulations to figure out where
last year’s car was and where we could improve
on this,’ says Carbonieri. ‘For example, modifying
the CoG to see if we had any performance
advantages or simulating a lighter car to see
how the lap times improved. This was very
useful for our development process. We also
used MatLab to understand the brake power
requirements and the heat produced during
simulated braking events, we used this to
design the brake ducts and the discs. Last year
we had overheating in our brake fluid which led
the driver to lose confidence in the car, so we
wanted to get that under control this year.’
In terms of physical testing, the team had
access to three test tracks encompassing areas
for acceleration and brake tests, plus a skid-pad
and an autocross track to replicate what it
would face in the competition. MMR managed
around 150km of testing in the months leading
up to the FSUK event, using the time to optimise
the aero and vehicle dynamics set-up.
Overall, MMR built on previous experience,
and with a solid approach it designed, produced
and raced a car that was very worthy of its
impressive victory at FSUK in 2019 .
TECHNOLOGY – ENGINEERING BASICS
Winning formula
Our resident number cruncher presents his must-read master-class
on the fundamentals of effective racecar engineering
By DANNY NOWLAN
A DTM BMW on the limit at Brands Hatch. Grip and
balance are the properties of a racecar that race
engineers will find themselves dealing with the most
O
ne of the most challenging things
when we come to engineering
a racecar can be how do you
actually go about it? I realise that
this, for a lot of motorsport professionals, is the
question that dare not be asked, on account you
might seem silly. However, a couple of weeks
ago I was invited by Altair Engineering to be a
keynote speaker at its inaugural Australian FSAE
technical conference. I figured this was a fantastic
opportunity to address this question.
What I will be discussing here is the text
version of the presentation I gave. The goal was
to give the budding engineers a road map on
how to go about engineering a car. In particular,
what you need to be thinking about in terms of
hand calculations and when you bring in tools
such as ChassisSim. All this allows you to make
informed engineering decisions as opposed to
just mindlessly using a CAE tool or sticking your
finger in the air and hoping for the best.
22 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019
Also, to set the scene, I will be tying together
quite a few elements I have previously discussed.
For brevity I will reference these as needed,
because what we are about to discuss is quite
literally a two-day seminar in its own right.
Grip and balance
To kick things off, if we think about the race
engineering problem – that is, making a car go
as fast as possible – our two main currencies are
grip and balance. I should also add to that if you
are in an unconstrained formula engine power as
well. However, as race engineers we deal with the
first two points the most. Make no mistake, if you
are serious about having a car that is fast it must
have grip and it must have balance. The ultimate
incarnation of this, to paraphrase one of my
fellow contributors Peter Wright, is not a racecar,
but an aircraft, the Spitfire. It was said you didn’t
fly the Spitfire, the Spitfire flew you. That’s the
Holy Grail of what we are after as race engineers.
So the critical question is, how do we put
numbers to all this? Grip is the easy part of the
equation. For a given set-up, bare minimum you
can get a very good estimation of the forces
the tyres can produce. However, handling is a
different ball game entirely.
To nail down handling your best friend is the
stability index (see V28N2). What the stability
index measures is the moment arm between
the centre of the lateral forces of the car and the
centre of gravity. This is illustrated in Figure 1 and
just to refresh everyone’s memory the stability
index (stbi) is calculated by Equation 1.
So, a quick recap of what the stability index
numbers mean. If the number is less than zero
the car is stable, so it will level itself off when an
input is applied. When it is zero you give it an
input and it just keeps going. If it’s greater than
zero you give it an input and it spins. The number
the stability index returns is the moment arm
between the centre of gravity and the centre
Figure 1: An illustration of the stability index Figure 3: Visualisation of the meaning of
Static Margin a second order tyre model
x TCRAD
αr δ
ka Lp
αf 2
Fyr N.P. Static y Fyr
b a
Lp Fz

of the lateral forces divided by the racecar’s

Figure 2: Simulated F3 front wing change
wheelbase. As rough rules of thumb you want to
be aiming for mid corner values of 0.05 with the
occasional venture to 0.1 on turn-in. However
these are rough rules of thumb.
The reason the stability index is so useful is
it succinctly quantifies what the car’s handling is
doing. The plot of a Formula 3 front wing change
in Figure 2 is a perfect case in point.
The coloured plot is the baseline, the black is
the aero balance moved forward by five per cent.
As can be seen, the speed, steering and throttle
do not change by drastic amounts. The reason for
this comes down to the nature of the tyre model
and how simulators are like The Terminator. They
Figure 2: F3 front wing change simulated know no fear, they have no concept of mercy
and their only goal is speed. However, what has
changed quite markedly is the stability index
which is shown in the final plot. The baseline has
EQUATIONS a stability index value of -8.5 per cent and the
change is -5.3 per cent. Consequently this forms a
EQUATION 1 EQUATION 3 valuable tool for nailing down car handling.
rcm = rcf + wdr*(rcr - rcf);
∂C f EQUATION 4 Tyre models
Cf = α =α f ⋅ ( Fm1 + Fm 2 )
∂α f hsm = h - rcm; So how do we quantify all this? Well the first step
EQUATION 5 is to get yourself a tyre model. Now most people
∂C r rsf = (krbf + kfa)*ktf/( kfa + krbf + ktf); at this stage of the game will just throw their toys
Cr = α =α r ⋅ ( Fm3 + Fm 4 ) EQUATION 6 out of the pram and say it simply can’t be done.
∂α r rsr = (kfb + krbr)*ktr/(kfb + krbr + ktr); But remember a previous article of mine on how
CT = C f + C r EQUATION 7 to create tyre models from scratch (V26N2)?
prm = rsf/(rsr + rsf); If so you’ll know the key to any tyre model is
a ⋅ C f − b ⋅ Cr EQUATION 8 nailing down the traction circle radius vs load
stbi ≈
CT ⋅ wb prr = (wdf*rcf + prm*hsm)/h; characteristic. Its basic building block is shown in
Where: Equation 2. What this means in plain English is
Where: rcm mean roll centre (measured in metres) that any tyre model can be broken down into the
∂CF/∂a(αf) slope of normalised slip angle function for the front tyre rcf front roll centre height (measured in metres) visualisation shown in Figure 3 (Lp is peak load).
∂CR/∂a(αf) slope of normalised slip angle function for the rear tyre rcr rear roll centre height (measured in metres) So what this all means is that any tyre model
Fm(L1) traction circle radius for the left front (N) wdr weight distribution at the rear of the car can be described by its peak load and force.
Fm(L2) traction circle radius for the right front (N) wdf weight distribution at the front of the car So if you know what your peak tyre loads are
Fm(L3) traction circle radius for the left rear (N) h centre of gravity height of the car (measured in metres) and what grip you’re expecting you can get a
Fm(L4) traction circle radius for the right rear (N) rsf wheel spring rate in roll for the front (N/m) representative tyre model very easily.
rsr wheel spring rate in roll for the rear (N/m) The way we tie this up through our set-up
EQUATION 2 ktf front tyre spring rate (N/m) is the lateral load transfer distribution at the
ktr rear tyre spring rate (N/m) front. This is sometimes referred to as the ‘magic
TC RAD = k a (1 − k b ⋅ Fz ) ⋅ Fz kfa spring rate of the front coil, acting at the wheel (N/m) number’. While this doesn’t really have any

Where kfb spring rate of the rear coil, acting at the wheel (N/m) magical characteristics it’s a great tool to help us
TCRAD traction circle radius (N) krbr rear roll bar rate (N/m) nail down our tyre load for a given mechanical
ka initial coefficient of friction prm lateral load transfer through the sprung mass and aero set-up. A quick summary of where this
kb drop off of coefficient with load prr lateral load transfer distribution at the front comes from is shown in Equations 3 to 8.
Fz load on the tyre (N) tm mean track of the vehicle The real significance of the lateral load
transfer distribution is that it gives us a first cut

To nail down a racecar’s handling your best friend is the stability index
FORMULA STUDENT 2019 www.racecar-engineering.com 23
TECHNOLOGY – ENGINEERING BASICS

EQUATIONS
EQUATION 9
L1 = (wdf*mt*g + Faero_f)/2 + prr*(mt*ay)h/tm + other terms
EQUATION 10
L2 = (wdf*mt*g + Faero_f)/2 - prr*( mt*ay)h/tm + other terms
EQUATION 11
L3 = (wdr*mt*g + Faero_r)/2 + (1 –prr)* (mt*ay)h/tm + other terms
EQUATION 12
L4 = (wdr*mt*g + Faero_r)/2 - (1 – prr)*(mt*ay)h/tm + other terms
Figure 4: Grip vs lateral load transfer distribution at the front
of what to expect with tyre loads. This is
illustrated in Equations 9 through to 12 – where
mt is car total mass (kg); g is acceleration due to
gravity; and Faero is total aerodynamic force (N). I
go into much more depth on this in my article on
tyre load analysis, so I would refer you to that to
chase down the details (V28N1).
Even though this is all pseudo static
approximations we now have a tool with which
we can calculate both grip and stability index. I
discussed this in depth in my article on the magic
number (V26N9) but the end results of this are
illustrated here in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
This is very powerful because for a given
set of tyres it will tell you where you need to be
for a given lateral load transfer distribution to
generate the peak grip and what this will do for
car stability. You ignore these figures at your peril.
The next step in the race engineering process
is determining springs, roll centres and pitch
centres and hot running tyre pressures. All of this
determines the core temperatures/pressures the
tyre needs to run at. The springs will be dictated
by the aero and getting the core heating in the
tyres you need. Also, the relationship between
springs and suspension geometry will have a
massive impact. There are two ways this can
be facilitated. Firstly testing, which is pretty self
explanatory, then the other method is using
track replay facilities, like in ChassisSim, with the
internal tyre temp flag turned on.

Quarter car model

Once you have determined your base spring rate
your next port of call is damping. Your best friend
in this regard is the quarter car model. While it
is not the most exact thing out there the beauty
of the quarter car is it allows you to articulate
mathematically what your dampers are doing.
The core sums you will have to get your head
around are Equations 13 and 14. The key take
away from this is the damper guide, as illustrated
in Figure 6. The thing about this is it is a first cut,
but it gets you in the ballpark.
Once you have done all of this you are now
ready to turn on the simulator and your first
port of call is the shaker rig simulation. The
outputs of the shaker rig simulation are shown
in Figure 7. The power of the shaker rig
Figure 5: Stability index vs lateral load transfer distribution at the front
simulation is that it allows you to look at the
car in the frequency domain and through the
contact patch load (CPL) variation it gives you a
really good gauge of tyre grip.

Simulation in action
In my 2014 article on simulation in action
(V24N5) I described in depth how my Australian
dealer Pat Cahill used this to engineer the
Maranello Motorsport Ferrari F458 to victory in
the 2014 Bathurst 12 hours. To summarise the
first part of the process, you play with springs
and large damper adjustments to minimise CPL.
What will happen is you will get into a zone
where the CPL will hit a minimum and actually
won’t vary too much. Once you hit this you start
playing with minor spring and damper changes
to get the shape of the frequency response that
you want. It’s actually that simple. This results in a
EQUATIONS marked improvement in mechanical grip without
compromising driver feel. The other key thing
EQUATION 13 EQUATION 14 to highlight again is that you choose a corner

C B = 2 ⋅ ω0 ⋅ mB ⋅ ζ
Where: speed and input velocity that is appropriate for a

KB Kb wheel rate of the spring (N/m) particular corner you want to analyse.
ω0 = CB
Cb wheel damping rate of the spring (N/m/s) Once you are done with the shaker rig

mB ζ =
mb mass of the quarter car.
ω0 natural frequency (rad/s)
simulation this is when you move on to the lap
time simulation. What the lap time simulation
2 ⋅ ω 0 ⋅ mB ζ damping ratio does is it allows you to dial in ride heights, gear
ratios, wing levels and in the transient simulation

24 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019
 TECHNOLOGY – ENGINEERING BASICS

in ChassisSim’s case it allows you to build on the

good work done in the shaker rig simulation. I Figure 6: Damper set-up guide
have written at length on how to use lap time
simulation (V26N7) but let me summaries
two key points. Firstly, when using lap time
simulation you have to be as deliberate as when
you are running the car and you have to look
at the data through a slightly different lens. You
always log the data and make a running record
of it as if it is an actual test. Also, you are looking
for small consistent changes. I discussed this at
length in my article about how to use simulated
data (V26N10) but your changes will show
primarily as differences in cornering speeds.
But do not get tied up in correlation because
correlation is a consequence, not the end goal.
If I had $5 for every time I’ve seen someone
obsessed with correlation in this business I
would have retired as a multi-millionaire to a
sub-tropical island long ago. What happens with
correlation is that as your tyre and aero model
evolves the correlation happens as a by-product.
Figure 7: Outputs from the ChassisSim shaker rig simulation toolbox
The better your driver, the quicker the process is,
but never forget this. Table 1 shows some rules
of thumb for cornering speed correlation.
The exception that proves the rule is ovals,
since you have to have representative speeds in
order to match the tyre loads.
You also don’t have to be perfect for
something to be useful. For example, Figure
8 is an example of the correlation I used to get
a fair way down the road with a VdeV sports
racer driven by an amateur driver. As always the
coloured trace is actual, black is simulated.

Summing up
At this point it would be wise to summarise what
we have been through here. First, you always
need to remember that race engineering comes
down to grip and handling, with the latter being
quantified by the stability index. We then use
data and a rudimentary vehicle model to derive
the tyre model. Once this is done, we use this
model to determine the lateral load transfer at Table 1: Rules of thumb for lap time simulation correlation
the front we should be running. Corner speed Delta
After this we then move on to use testing/ 80-120km/h 1-2km/h
open loop simulation to see the combination 120-160km/h 2-3km/h
of springs/pressures/suspension geometry 160km/h + 3-4km/h
we need to achieve to get the required tyre
heating. We then determine our quarter car
Figure 8: VdeV sportscar correlation with an amateur driver
damper ratios using the damper guide. Finally
we then finish the job off by using the shaker rig
and lap time simulation tools.
The important thing to remember is that
race engineering boils down to grip and balance
and what we have presented here is the game
plan for achieving this. We have articulated the
method of how to use hand calculations, what
to look for, and how to use simulation tools like
ChassisSim as calculators, as opposed to magic
wands. If you can get your head around all this
then you are well on your way to figuring out
how to get the best out of your car. Past issues
referred to in this piece be purchased from:
www.chelseamagazinescom/shop

26 www.racecar-engineering.com FORMULA STUDENT 2019

 STUDENT SPECIAL OFFER
1 YEAR FOR ONLY £34.95
Subscribe to motorsport’s
leading technology magazine
Keep up to speed with the Leading-Edge Motorspo
rt Technology Since 1990
latest innovation in racecar
design and get technical
insight and performance
analysis from the leading October 2019 • Vol 29

Haas VF-19
No 10 • www.racecar-engin
eering.com • UK £5.95

motorsport technology
• US $14.50

publication every month.

The curious case of F1’s
INSIDE most inconsistent car
EACH ISSUE
•Unrivalled analysis
of major events
including Formula
One, the World Rally
Championship and
the World Endurance
Championship
•The latest product
developments
SAVE
Audi R8 LMS GT2 Formula Student OVER
Ginetta G60-LT-P1
•Features from leading
50%
Putting the wow into GT
Tech trends that are rocking
racing’s brand new class Can this reborn racecar take
the European FS scene
industry engineers Cover_PDACBSMB.in
dd 1
the fight to Toyota in LMP1?

23/08/2019 19:00

TO ORDER
www.chelseamagazines.com/NRCEFS19
+44 (0) 1858 438 443 (quote code NRCEFS19) Leading-Edge Motorsport Technology Since 1990

October 2019 • Vol 29 No 10 • www.racecar-engineering.com • UK £5.95 • US $14.50

Haas VF-19
The curious case of F1’s
most inconsistent car

DIGITAL EDITION ALSO AVAILABLE WORLDWIDE

for tablet, smartphone and desktop. To order go to:
www.chelseamagazines.com/NRC1FS19 Audi R8 LMS GT2
Putting the wow into GT
racing’s brand new class

Cover_PDACBSMB.indd 1
Formula Student
Tech trends that are rocking
the European FS scene
Ginetta G60-LT-P1
Can this reborn racecar take
the fight to Toyota in LMP1?

23/08/2019 19:00